My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/15/1991
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
5/15/1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:09 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:20:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/15/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that was there, the regulation in place when they came in for the <br />application would be what we would apply. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that is exactly what our non- <br />conforming use standard has been for years. <br />Commissioner Bowman assumed there would have to be some <br />record that they received a permit before they built the dock and <br />wondered how long our records on this go back. <br />Planner DeBlois advised that it has been his experience from <br />Code Enforcement that we tend to go to at least 1970 where we <br />have good records.'' Before that, if neither the county or the <br />person can produce a permit, we look at this closely and <br />generally favor the public. <br />Commissioner Bowman commented that a lot of docks were <br />replaced after the last big blow we had in the county. <br />Attorney Vitunac noted that replacing a dock after it is <br />totally destroyed would require a new permit. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed that if anything is 500 <br />destroyed, it has to come into conformity with the existing <br />regulations, and that was confirmed. <br />Vice Chairman Wheeler opened the public hearing and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard. <br />George McDowell, 135th Lane, requested that he be allowed <br />whatever the state says -is permitted for docks and boat covers. <br />Commissioner Scurlock advised Mr. McDowell that the <br />restrictions we are considering adopting would be less <br />restrictive than the state's, and since Mr. McDowell is just <br />asking for at least state standards, he would be all right. <br />Planner DeBlois informed the Board that the criteria the <br />state is requiring Mr. McDowell to meet would satisfy our <br />regulations. <br />Commissioner Bowman noted that Mr. McDowell had been asking <br />for 640 sq. ft., and Mr. DeBlois agreed that was right but <br />explained that the state is now requiring him to modify his <br />shelter back to a total of 490 sq. ft., which includes the <br />terminal platform. <br />Vice Chairman Wheeler determined that no one else wished to <br />be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- <br />missioner Bowman, Chairman Bird and Commissioner Eggert <br />being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved <br />staff's recommendation and adopted Ordinance 91-23 <br />amending the LDRs. <br />F^jY <br />ROOK ;E j a'4 r <br />5 <br />MAY 15 1991 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.